Social media and polarisation

RE: Social media and polarisation

bob lehner — Thu, 14 Jan 2021 11:22:04 GMT

[quote userid="8991" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29590/social-media-and-polarisation/227803#227803"]Re the employer thing, I think it is overstated. It is quite clear that this is a forum where people are posting as individuals who are vets - a lot of it is clinical asking for assistance, some arguing over Brexit etc, no different to debating in a pub to my mind - do people apply the same employer criteria to that? I'm not sure they do.[/quote]

Possibly you are being a tad naive there David. In the pub I'm sure you'd be aware if your employer was hovering nearby and listening to what you are saying. The same cannot be said on-line.

RE: Social media and polarisation

Neil Wheadon — Wed, 13 Jan 2021 17:01:52 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29590/social-media-and-polarisation/227815#227815"]I've kind of shifted on that one. I used to think 'creepy' when I saw adverts relating to things I had browsed (I mean creepy that I was being followed, not that I had been browsing for creepy things). Now I think 'ah ... interesting', and am happy to be shown things relevant to me. [/quote]

It's mostly landfill at the end of the day

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29590/social-media-and-polarisation/227815#227815"]Particularly notice it in relation to gadgets, which I am now served a lot of, and I am more likely to click for more info out of genuine interest.[/quote]

I need to write a book of anecdotes

'Remember you spend you years till aged 60 accumulating stuff, then the years after that getting rid of it'

Neil

RE: Social media and polarisation

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 13 Jan 2021 14:02:36 GMT

[quote userid="8958" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29590/social-media-and-polarisation/227811#227811"]Do you really think that Facebook cares what your favourite book, film, food etc are??[/quote]

'Course not!

[quote userid="8958" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29590/social-media-and-polarisation/227811#227811"]Fabulous story from America.[/quote]

I am going to keep a closer eye on what is being advertised to my daughter! (though thankfully it is still a little early to be looking for babywear adverts!)

[quote userid="8958" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29590/social-media-and-polarisation/227811#227811"]However their advertisers do[/quote][quote userid="8958" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29590/social-media-and-polarisation/227811#227811"]Tell them as little as possible[/quote]

I've kind of shifted on that one. I used to think 'creepy' when I saw adverts relating to things I had browsed (I mean creepy that I was being followed, not that I had been browsing for creepy things). Now I think 'ah ... interesting', and am happy to be shown things relevant to me.

Particularly notice it in relation to gadgets, which I am now served a lot of, and I am more likely to click for more info out of genuine interest.

RE: Social media and polarisation

Neil Wheadon — Wed, 13 Jan 2021 13:13:00 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29590/social-media-and-polarisation/227789#227789"] One thing I HAVE removed is my date of birth from FB and elsewhere.[/quote]

Do you really think that Facebook cares what your favourite book, film, food etc are?? However their advertisers do

Fabulous story from America.

A national store were so good at using data from customers that they started targeting a young lady with advertising in regards baby clothes. Her father stormed into the store and complained to the manager as there was no way his 18 year daughter was expecting. Little did he know that she was on folate etc and indeed she was.

Tell them as little as possible, and by the way, I'm sticking to the camel in my biography. If you want to know about me google Neil Wheadon, there are only 2 of us on the planet

Fred

RE: Social media and polarisation

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 13 Jan 2021 12:09:22 GMT

[quote userid="8991" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29590/social-media-and-polarisation/227803#227803"]Vanity is the quicksand of reason. [/quote]

Laughed out loud, I didn't remove it because I am getting old and don't want people to know. I did it because DOB is a commonly asked security question.

[quote userid="8991" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29590/social-media-and-polarisation/227803#227803"]To add to that, vetsurgeon.org made it into my PhD thesis last week - fame at last.[/quote]

I feel like my life is complete now.

RE: Social media and polarisation

David Mills — Wed, 13 Jan 2021 12:07:16 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29590/social-media-and-polarisation/227789#227789"]One thing I HAVE removed is my date of birth from FB and elsewhere.[/quote]

Vanity is the quicksand of reason. To add to that, vetsurgeon.org made it into my PhD thesis last week - fame at last.

Re the employer thing, I think it is overstated. It is quite clear that this is a forum where people are posting as individuals who are vets - a lot of it is clinical asking for assistance, some arguing over Brexit etc, no different to debating in a pub to my mind - do people apply the same employer criteria to that? I'm not sure they do.

RE: Social media and polarisation

vetbl.locum — Wed, 13 Jan 2021 11:03:08 GMT

Sorry for that

I have a split in my working life

And yes I have been a locum just not this last year

RGds

PS Brexit helped to screw my Greek gig

RE: Social media and polarisation

vetbl.locum — Wed, 13 Jan 2021 10:54:50 GMT

Gosh Wish i was that articulate ....

Agree with all your points except 6

Rgds

RE: Social media and polarisation

Beats — Wed, 13 Jan 2021 10:32:44 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29590/social-media-and-polarisation/227789#227789"]It is the same as saying that an airbag should be replaced with a kitchen knife; people would drive more carefully.[/quote]

To take your analogy (if I've understood it correctly), personally I would drive less if airbags were replaced with kitchen knives (speaking as a non-car owner).

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29590/social-media-and-polarisation/227789#227789"]Likewise, knowing you are accountable makes people less likely to post something regrettable.[/quote]

or less likely to post? I can speak only for myself and have no reason to expect I am reflective of the average vet.

I would probably continue to post/read-posts, but would not pass comment on the PSS or RCVS etc for instance and would ensure that my posts were more "sterile" - that may be a good thing both for myself and others!

I am not suggesting that my views are reflective of others at all, and insisting on real names +/or photos does not sound an unreasonable plan - if may well improve the forums and be a shrewd business move on your part. I can certainly see how it potentially could w.r.t the expert forums, perhaps less so in the general forums - but again could be a significant improvement - there is comment in this thread of helpful individuals who make excellent contributions being put off posting by the prevalence of non-real-name-posts.

On further reflection, i think you'd need to do an off-line poll of the demographic of posters that you are trying to attract to the site to get a fuller picture of whether real-names, or the ability to not use real-names (a feature unique from FB as you would say) is more desirable. If I was a recent graduate, the ability to post without my real name would be a big plus to me as I would like to be able to ask the opinion of vets not in my workplace on matters without risking offending vets in my workplace; what I'm not sure is whether this is a thought that is reflective more of me (a non-facebook user) or a genuine consideration that young trendies might have (I'm guessing not, perhaps)?

RE: Social media and polarisation

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 13 Jan 2021 10:15:43 GMT

[quote userid="12930" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29590/social-media-and-polarisation/227786#227786"]You did ask![/quote]

Thank you very much. Very interesting. Trying to put myself in the shoes of someone a little earlier in their career, I would say:

1) A good online presence can give you an advantage in a job interview. In fact, increasingly I suspect employers think its a bit strange if someone has no internet presence at all. Do they have something to hide?

2) I don't think there are many bits of personal info which present a security risk. One thing I HAVE removed is my date of birth from FB and elsewhere. You should never use a password which is a name of a pet, or anything, actually. Best to use something like 1Password to generate and store really difficult ones. Second best is to use a mnemonic.

3) Yes, I can understand that, although some people just put a signature which clarifies that their opinions are their own.

4) That has not ever been a problem in 10 years!

5) Fun, but not a reason for anonymity in a professional forum.

6) That is entirely the point! It is the same as saying that an airbag should be replaced with a kitchen knife; people would drive more carefully. Likewise, knowing you are accountable makes people less likely to post something regrettable.

RE: Social media and polarisation

Beats — Wed, 13 Jan 2021 09:48:33 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29590/social-media-and-polarisation/227783#227783"]can I ask why you don't show your name?[/quote]

Off the cuff, in descending order of importance:

1) If I go for a job interview, I like to be a fresh, clean page, with no preconceptions on me at all. Perhaps I might even wish to re-invent myself.

2) I generally give out few personal details on the internet - I like to think that is rational to limit risk of identity fraud, but it may simply reflect paranoid delusions. A few years back, my work asked me for a bio for the website - I wouldn't even give out my pet's name (in case I'd used it for passwords etc.) - is surprisingly hard to write a warm and personable bio while also providing no information whatsoever on yourself.

3) I don't feel I should comment on the internet in a professional capacity as an employee of a veterinary clinic, where my comments are likely to be linked back to that, and associated with that, veterinary clinic, without getting the expressed permission of my boss on the matter. Even if I tried hard to avoid making comment that may reflect on my employer or his/her business, I may slip, and not directly attributing my name to such a post provides some additional protection.

4) It is less likely that any clinical case material discussed will be personally identifiable (something we should try to avoid) if my name is not directly attributed to it.

5) I like to be anonymous in real life too I think. On the internet, you get the additional fun of watching speculation occur on your gender. When I go to mums and tots groups, I prefer the ones where folks don't ask what I work as.

6) I sometimes make controversial or unwise comments on the internet that I might regret making with the benefit of hindsight. Less likely to regret them if they are not as directly attributed to me.

You did ask!

RE: Social media and polarisation

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 13 Jan 2021 09:29:08 GMT

[quote userid="9515" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29590/social-media-and-polarisation/227784#227784"]it's part fo the reason I've moved away from posting on this platform.[/quote]

Really? I mean, if you look at the list of most recent forum posts, pretty much everyone shows their name.

RE: Social media and polarisation

Sarah Keir — Wed, 13 Jan 2021 09:26:26 GMT

Several of the most vocal commentators on here don't show their name, have no photo and don't have anything in their profile. vetbl.locum are you in Greece as your profile suggests and your name suggests you are locum yet the questions you pose don't fit with this!

Arlo Guthrie for me transparency is key and it's part fo the reason I've moved away from posting on this platform.

RE: Social media and polarisation

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 13 Jan 2021 09:07:30 GMT

[quote userid="12930" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29590/social-media-and-polarisation/227777#227777"]Brand it as a net privacy issue - that's very trendy these days ;-)[/quote]

Ha ;)

Beats - can I ask why you don't show your name? I've never associated you with anything controversial, I don't think. On the contrary. Would you mind doing so?

[quote userid="4367" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29590/social-media-and-polarisation/227779#227779"]It is time[/quote]

Shall we have a vote?

I have to say, I do like the idea of a photo too.

RE: Social media and polarisation

Iain Richards — Wed, 13 Jan 2021 08:50:31 GMT

It is time

RE: Social media and polarisation

Beats — Wed, 13 Jan 2021 08:15:09 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29590/social-media-and-polarisation/227775#227775"]Not sure it sets us apart from FB though, as everyone shows their name there.[/quote]

That's settled then. Not having to show your name sets you apart from facebook. Brand it as a net privacy issue - that's very trendy these days ;-)

RE: Social media and polarisation

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 12 Jan 2021 23:03:09 GMT

[quote userid="9515" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29590/social-media-and-polarisation/227773#227773"]our benevolent leader of VetSurgeon[/quote]

Having given the matter some thought and after careful consideration, I think I prefer: “Dear Leader, Who is a Perfect Incarnation of the Appearance that a Leader Should Have”

(Selected from this rather special list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kim_Jong-il%27s_titles)

On the matter of anonymity ... Currently transparency (names) is a requirement for experts and I think I am minded to make it a requirement of using the expert forums.

Have not made it compulsory in the non expert forums, because I didn’t want to remove the ability for people to seek advice for sensitive situations, but they can use the anon login for that, so maybe it is time. Not sure it sets us apart from FB though, as everyone shows their name there. The difference is that here we have more professional profiles which fb does not offer.

RE: Social media and polarisation

Sarah Keir — Tue, 12 Jan 2021 22:42:15 GMT

One think that I hoped our benevolent leader of VetSurgeon would enforce, was the use of read names and photos. THAT would set VetSurgeon apart from the FB groups. At a modicum of accountability if you potentially could tell who it was passing comment.

RE: Social media and polarisation

vetbl.locum — Tue, 12 Jan 2021 21:04:38 GMT

Is it the speed of change in these new means of interaction?

There is no time to pause and reflect.

However the behavior of certain groups further hamper peoples ability in deciding how to interact.

Trump has behaved just like Herr Hitler & NS organisation. The social media has hastened that process.

Lie Keep Lying Pick a weak group to demonise, Attack Judges , any dissenting press voices and wrap yourself in a flag. We are the patriots and anyone disagrees is a traitor.

What was that series ? 'Lesson from History'

Worrying Trump still is playing out his hand.and may yet succeed

Rgds

PS Sadly our own 'Dear Leader' has done the exact same as Trump except no guns involved. IMO

RE: Social media and polarisation

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 12 Jan 2021 10:14:31 GMT

[quote userid="9239" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29590/social-media-and-polarisation/227745#227745"]I think there is nothing new under the sun, just more people in the churn.[/quote]

I think there is something new under the sun. You didn't, for example, used to see the reported levels of depression and suicide attributed to social media amongst children.

[quote userid="9239" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29590/social-media-and-polarisation/227745#227745"]Maybe there is less in real life just because trolling increases the risk of being punched in the mouth.[/quote]

That's the thing that's new. As you say, debate 40 years ago was between people you know. So whether it was to stop yourself getting a punch on the nose, or because you didn't want to upset someone, or because you wanted to be liked, you'd self-moderate what you say. What you would call 'manners'.

On social media, where people don't care(or at least, care less) whether they are liked, or whether they upset someone, and there is no risk of a punch on the nose, they are less well mannered.

RE: Social media and polarisation

Dinu Catilina — Tue, 12 Jan 2021 01:44:46 GMT

I think there is nothing new under the sun, just more people in the churn. Debate 40 years ago was between friends or at least people you knew so you didn't see all the drama everyone else had. Now it's in plain sight but aggressive communication, trolling, mocking, opposite extreme views are as old as human kind.

Maybe there is less in real life just because trolling increases the risk of being punched in the mouth.

RE: Social media and polarisation

Beats — Mon, 11 Jan 2021 20:58:12 GMT

[quote userid="4367" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29590/social-media-and-polarisation/227739#227739"]Google is simialr and has it's probelm in showing populatity of search uless you now how to use it. If I had to pay for twitter, I wouldn't use it, probably the same for facebook. I'd pay for a search engine that actually searched.[/quote]

you may find (but not via Google!) this of interest / novelty to you:

https://www.betterinternetsearch.com/about_us

I currently use:

https://www.ecosia.org/, but may return to Google again yet...

i used duckduckgo for a while, but I went off it totally. One issue I have with all these don't-save-your-search-or-track-you-search-engines is while that sounds all nice and noble, I suspect that the majority of people that gravitate towards them have something to hide... and while Google has pretty decent clean-browsing DNS filters etc for instance, some of these other search engines are pretty hard to make "family-firendly" (and can be hard to reliably block on Edge... which I don't think can be easily removed from Windows10 anymore, and presumably if it is can reappear without warning...)

RE: Social media and polarisation

Iain Richards — Mon, 11 Jan 2021 19:56:58 GMT

It is THE point Arlo! On here or on an email discussion you get all sorts of views, unfiltered. Facebook and Twitter (no idea about anythig else) are advertising platforms, nothing else. The algorithms are more than powerful and do create the echo chamber. Google is simialr and has it's probelm in showing populatity of search uless you now how to use it. If I had to pay for twitter, I wouldn't use it, probably the same for facebook. I'd pay for a search engine that actually searched.
The other issue is that we have not yet changed our behaviour to cope with the written word only and especially when it is directed at us personally. I'm sure we will learn, eventually

What would be really useful is a filtering system, one that should a string of offensive words occur together, the software sends it back to the writer asking to change it. If they don't they can't post. It will at least remove the, "I hope you die in agony" post but allow the, "I hope you get a boil on your bum" post

RE: Social media and polarisation

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 11 Jan 2021 19:42:09 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29590/social-media-and-polarisation/227731#227731"] I think that whole process of deciding what appears in your feed should be completely transparent and defined by the reader, not by Facebook. [/quote]

Facebook is a commercial organisation. It can do what it wants.

[quote userid="8991" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29590/social-media-and-polarisation/227704#227704"]The Assange stuff is an interesting example. Was that responsible? Wikileaks was very selective about what it released - mainly it was anti-capitalist, anti-Western stuff. The swathes of unreleased stuff about Leftist governments (China, Russia) that they didn't release is apparently huge. [/quote]

Well, if he'd tried it with China he'd have been dead long ago.

RE: Social media and polarisation

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 11 Jan 2021 12:16:03 GMT

[quote userid="10320" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29590/social-media-and-polarisation/227730#227730"]There's also the issue of what socia media chooses to show you[/quote]

That is SUCH a good and important point. I've noticed recently how posts from people I have responded to seem to appear more often than people I haven't responded to, and that is quite insidious in many ways. I think that whole process of deciding what appears in your feed should be completely transparent and defined by the reader, not by Facebook.